Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Pentagon Briefing
Aired August 23, 2005 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, HOST: New mileage standards for your gas guzzling SUV. What will it mean for you? We're crunching the numbers today on LIVE FROM.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REV. PAT ROBERTSON, FOUNDER, CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING NETWORK: You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: Pat Robertson, stirring the pot again. Get the whole story, including a closer look at the man Robertson says should be assassinated.
And live this hour, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld meets with reporters at the Pentagon. We'll bring that to you live as soon as it starts.
From the CNN Center in Atlanta, I'm Kyra Phillips. CNN's LIVE FROM starts right now.
Conflict, commotion, even a curse. But in just a few hours, Israeli soldiers and police emptied two Jewish strongholds in the northern West Bank. And so completed Israel's unilateral, unprecedented and until recently unthinkable disengagement from territory captured in 1967 and claimed by Palestinians for a future state.
Today's actions centered on the settlements of Homesh and Sanur. And CNN's Guy Raz was in the thick of it.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GUY RAZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): They marched in the morning, expecting a struggle, a final showdown as the last remaining settlements were evacuated.
Thousands of police and soldiers were sent here, fearing that in this community blood might be shed. It never happened. The army cleared the settlement of Sanur out in a day.
Six hundred people were inside this hilltop settlement, where believers say Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers. Few of those still here were residents, and many brought their children. The most hardline were holed up on the top of a fortress dating back from the Ottoman Empire.
Earlier in the day, police smashed through a barricade blocking the entrance into the settlement synagogue. Settlers built this structure less than four months ago, a symbol of this community's unwillingness to acknowledge the inevitability of their evacuation.
Those inside were brought out. Most agreed to walk out on their own, carrying the sacred torah scrolls with them.
This old Ottoman era fortress was once occupied by Turks and the British, Jordanians, and finally, Israeli. On this day, it was settlers, refusing to leave and preparing for a fight.
Police were hoisted onto the roof in containers. Those on top tried to keep them at bay, but they failed. And police ended the final standoff here, hauling those who stayed onto buses and out of Sanur.
(on camera) The last remaining holdouts have been evacuated. The settlement of Sanur is now cleared out. The entire disengagement process was meant to take one month. But in the end it only took a week.
Guy Raz, CNN, Sanur settlement, in the northern West Bank.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIPS: Love thy neighbor? Not, it would seem, if you're televangelist pot rabbit son, and the neighbor in question is the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.
On yesterday's edition of Robertson's "700 Club," he called the leftist Chavez a terrific danger, a dangerous enemy, a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism. Therefore, said Robertson, take him out, assassinate them, explaining, quote, "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting war."
CNN's Kimberly Osias joins me with more on those fighting words and the fallout in Washington, kind of creating a war of its own.
KIMBERLY OSIAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'll tell you. Well, we just heard from State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack here, just a little while ago denouncing Pat Robertson's incendiary comments. I want to go to that in just a minute, but I want to go back to the origination of everything. It all started yesterday on his show "The 700 Club" when he fired the volleys. Let's take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTSON: Welcome to "The 700 Club." Cuban dictator Fidel Castro has a new ally in South America. His name, Hugo Chavez.
He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent. You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.
And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger. The united -- this is in our sphere of influence, and we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine. We have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil that could hurt us very badly.
We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong armed dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OSIAS: State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack did just speak out, denouncing those comments, saying that essentially Robertson is a private citizen but that we don't share his views.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN MCCORMACK, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: We do not share his view and his comments are inappropriate. And as we have said before, any allegations that we're planning to take hostile action against the Venezuelan government are completely baseless and without fact.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OSIAS: I just spoke with the Reverend Barry Lynn of the Americans for Separation of Church and State. He called Robertson's comments not only un-Christian, but chilling, Kyra, as well.
PHILLIPS: Kimberly Osias, thank you so much.
Well, Robertson's tirade was quite timely in that Chavez is wrapping up a high-profile visit with his close ally, some might even say mentor, Fidel Castro. Chavez, like Castro, has rallied against alleged U.S. imperialism and has nurtured ties with China and Iran, as well. Like Castro, Chavez is a survivor of a coup, a crippling nationwide strike and a recall referendum.
But unlike Cuba's president for life, Chavez is up for re- election next year. More now on the meeting of minds in Havana from CNN Havana bureau chief Lucia Newman.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LUCIA NEWMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Like father and son, wearing their favorite military olive greens, Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez drove into a remote town in western Cuba to broadcast the Venezuelan president's weekly radio and TV talk show. Chavez and Castro don't just dress alike; they talk alike, both tirelessly promoting their goal of a united Latin America free of U.S. influence.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Solidarity is the motive for our integration, our liberation, for the struggle against imperialist domination and so many other capitalist devices.
NEWMAN: The leader of oil rich Venezuela, like Castro, seems to view the White House as the root of all evil.
Chavez came to Cuba to attend this weekend's graduation of 1,600 medical students from Latin America and the Caribbean. For the new doctors, a dream come true.
"There's no way I could have studied medicine in my country. It's too expensive," says Rosie Belez-Nandez (ph) from Nicaragua. They're the first of 12,000 students of humble origin, studying medicine for free in Cuba, courtesy of Fidel Castro, who today attempts to spread his revolution by exporting goodwill, rather than guerrilla warfare.
FIDEL CASTRO, PRESIDENT OF CUBA (through translator): Today, these are the weapons. The battle is won with knowledge, talent, generosity. Liberty's conquered with solidarity.
NEWMAN: This year alone, more than 50,000 Venezuelans have come to Cuba to have eye surgery.
(on camera) But it's not just solidarity. Hospitals, schools, even tourist hotels like this one are full of Venezuelans here to undergo all types of medical treatment. In exchange, Cuba gets 90,000 barrels of Venezuelan oil a day at preferential prices.
(voice-over) And Castro also gets something he lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union: an unconditional and rich ally.
Under the Cubans' influence, Chavez has now declared his country, too, will soon be socialist, poison to the ears of the Bush administration, which views the Chavez-Castro alliance as a threat to regional stability.
The growing hostility doesn't seem to bother either one. Both Castro and Chavez convinced, it seems, that in their unity, lies their strength.
Lucia Newman, CNN, Havana.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIPS: And Hugo Chavez joins the ranks of several Supreme Court justices, the Quran and feminism, to name just three, that have drawn Pat Robertson's disapproval over the years.
It was the 1992 Republican convention where Robertson asserted feminism, and we quote, "encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
Well, is that the voice of conservative Christianity in America? In the next hour of LIVE FROM, I'll put that question to the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Reverend Ted Haggard.
And what do you think? Is Pat Robertson a leading Christian voice here in America? E-mail us at LiveFrom@CNN.com. We'll read your opinions next hour.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS (voice-over): Later today on LIVE FROM, his assassination talk has him back in the headlines. But does Pat Robertson speak for most Christians? We want to know what you think. E-mail us at LiveFrom@CNN.com. We'll read them next hour.
Also ahead, with gas prices high and hybrid style low, sports cars that are simply electric.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The car will give you a lot of adrenaline. It's really -- it's really sporty. It's really -- it's really fun.
PHILLIPS: And Iran's nukes. Is the proof of the program up in smoke?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: The fight for Iraq take us from the front line to the back rooms of parliament. Today, word that three more American troops have been killed. A soldier with Task Force Liberty was one of seven victims of a suicide bomber in Baquba. A Marine was killed in Fallujah by a roadside bomb. And a soldier assigned to Task Force Baghdad died in a rocket attack in the Iraqi capital.
Amid the violence, the wrangling continues between Iraq's main factions. That draft Iraqi constitution is done, but some details still need to be worked out. Chief among them, the issue of federalism. Lawmakers have given themselves until late Thursday to resolve their differences. They could amend that document or leave it as is. The final document goes to the voters in October.
President Bush is praising the efforts of Iraq's new leaders and indicates he won't change his mind about America's mission there. Comments and -- that he made just a short time ago, actually during his Idaho vacation, were just that.
CNN's Dana Bash joins me live from Boise with more -- Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Kyra.
Well, today was a day that we weren't supposed to see the president. At least that's what his public schedule said. But White House aides understand how critical it is for the president to continue to speak publicly about Iraq, the situation there, particularly since he was out of the spotlight for more than a week back in Crawford.
Now the president has asked today once again about Cindy Sheehan, whether he would meet with her. He certainly suggested that he has no plans to. But said that he, as he has before, supports her efforts to protest and others, even those who also agree with Mr. Bush, and he actually went directly after Cindy Sheehan's message, which is bring the troops home.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: She expressed her opinion. I disagree with it. I think immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake. I think those who advocate immediate withdrawal or -- from not only Iraq but the Middle East would be -- are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States.
So I appreciate her right to protest. I understand her anguish. I met with a lot of families. She doesn't represent the view of a lot of the families I have met with.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: And of course, President Bush has met once with Cindy Sheehan back in 2004.
He is going to have a meeting tomorrow when he goes to Mountain Home Air Force Base here in Idaho. He has some time slated on his schedule, as he often does when he goes to military bases, to meet with military families of those who are in Iraq and those who have been killed in Iraq.
One other thing, Kyra: the president did talk about the Iraqi constitution, the process, tried to put what is going on there -- the delay, even the confusion, in the context of America's experience, saying that it took quite some time to felt things done here in America, when it was writing its Constitution, but did say that it is going to be an important change in the broader Middle East -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: All right. Dana Bash, thank you so much.
And as we wait for Donald Rumsfeld's live remarks at the Pentagon, we're going to take a quick look at medical news.
A time bomb that so often goes unit is noticed. Many women tell their doctors of the symptoms up to three years before a cancer diagnosis is made. Elizabeth Cohen has that report, coming up next. Don't go away.
ANNOUNCER: You're watching LIVE FROM on CNN, the most trusted name in news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: Donald Rumsfeld now beginning the briefing there at the Pentagon. And from what we understand, he's going to introduce the new vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Let's listen in. DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF STATE: ... suggests the power of freedom's appeal in the struggle against tyranny.
Since the liberation of Iraq in 2003, millions of Iraqis have taken similar positions as that grandmother had: the 8 million Iraqis who defied threats and bombings to vote in last January's election; the tens of thousands who have joined the Iraqi security forces after being threatened that they'd be killed if they did so; and as we meet, the Iraqis from all section of the country that are engaging in the very hard bargaining and debate and negotiations on the next steps in fashioning their new constitution.
The process has been delayed a bit, but democracy has never been described as speedy, efficient or perfect.
And regrettably, completing the constitution is not likely to end all the violence in Iraq or solve all of the country's problem.
But it will represent one more important step toward cementing a new way of life for Iraqis, one ruled by ballot boxes rather than by death squads.
In keeping with Iraq's heritage, the draft under consideration reflects the country's Islamic beliefs, just as Afghanistan's constitution does. And it will require a respect for democratic principles and the rights of women and minorities.
Of course, some are arguing that the effort in Iraq is doomed. Recently, we've again been told Iraq may prove worse than Vietnam, and it's been alleged that we're not winning.
It's worth noting that the enemy does not appear to share that view. On the contrary, terrorists like Zarqawi are indicating concern about the lack of support from the Iraqi people.
RUMSFELD: And the reasons are clear. They terrorists, the insurgents are not a nationalist movement with a strong popular support. They have lost their safe havens in Iraq.
Their most prominent leaders are not Iraqis, they are not Ho Chi Mins with a nationalist base, but in the case of Zarqawi, a Jordanian murderer. And their massacres of innocents have outraged most Iraqis, rather than attracting broad support. Indeed, polls indicate that the anger against the terrorists and the insurgents is growing.
I'm reminded that a few weeks after Operation Enduring Freedom began in Afghanistan, a news story suggested that the U.S. was already in a quagmire. But it was several weeks later, only, that Kabul actually fell to the Northern Alliance and our forces.
Throughout history there have always been those who predict America's failure just around every corner. At the height of World War II, a prominent U.S. diplomat predicted that democracy was finished in Britain, and probably in America, too. Many Western intellectuals praised Stalin during that period.
For a time, Communism was very much en vogue. It was called Euro-Communism, to try to mute or mask the totalitarian core.
And thankfully the American people are better centered. They ultimately come to the right decisions on big issues. And the future of Iraq is a very big issue.
So those being tossed about by the winds of concern should recall that Americans are a tough lot and will see their commitments through.
Admiral Ed Giambastiani, the new vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it's a pleasure to have you here.
ADMIRAL EDMUND GIAMBASTIANI, VICE CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. It's a pleasure to join you today for my first opportunity to talk to the Pentagon press corps as vice chairman.
I look forward to engaging with many of these familiar faces and also getting acquainted with many of these new faces in the crowd.
GIAMBASTIANI: If you'll allow me, Mr. Secretary, I did want to make a few very brief comments.
These are challenging times. Our nation is at war, a war that will be won by the collective strength of all of the elements of national power.
The role of the Defense Department in that effort is significant to say the least. Our men and women deployed around the globe are making a difference each and every day.
As someone who has had the privilege to spend time with our military, civilian and contractor personnel deployed in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can report that they understand fully the importance of what they do.
They are proud of their many successes that they have achieved. Their morale is extremely high because they see real progress in the war on terrorism and in building democratic societies in the aftermath of tyranny.
I'm honored to serve as vice chairman to continue the work for and with these great Americans.
With that, we'd be happy to talk questions.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you spoke of hard bargaining going on, Iraq. And the question seems to be: How much bargaining is really going on now? The Shia claim that there are not going to be any major changes in this constitution before it goes to parliament, and the Sunni are saying that this could spark a civil war.
I guess the question is: Is there a real danger of American forces being caught up in not just a bloody insurgency but a civil war here?
RUMSFELD: Well, you casually say, "The Shia say this and the Sunnis say that." In point of fact, there's no one person speaking for the Shia or the Sunni. You find people all across the spectrum in both groups, just as you do the Kurds.
There's been a concern about the possibility of a civil war since before the war started. It hasn't happened. Indeed, quite the contrary has taken place.
After the Sunnis made the mistake of not participating in the election, they announced that they had made a mistake by not participating in the election and said they did want to participate, and they are participating.
The Shia had the possibility of announcing after the election that they won, Sunnis lost, and that it's their turn now. They didn't. They said they want to have a single country and they reached out to the Sunnis.
It strikes me -- the kinds of things one would look for if that were the concern -- just the opposite's been happening. People have been moving together, talking, discussing things. You can always find someone who's going to try to be a dead-ender and say, "If you don't do this, I won't do that." But that's part of negotiation. We see that in the Congress and we see it in democratic systems all over the world.
QUESTION: So I take it that is not a major concern of yours, that U.S. troops might be caught up in a civil war.
RUMSFELD: It hasn't happened yet. It is not happening now. And, obviously, it is something that one has to be attentive to and be concerned about. But I haven't seen anything to indicate that the risk is greater today than it was yesterday or the day before.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, may I ask Admiral G. a question, a welcoming question, with your acquiescence, please?
RUMSFELD: I want you to pronounce his full name so people get used to it?
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Admiral Giambastiani. Is that it?
RUMSFELD: That's pretty close.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: May I ask you to wear your Navy hat as well as your vice hat for this one?
Was it perhaps too tempting to tie up two Navy warships in a Middle East port for over a week and have the procedure of port calls to the Middle East change since the attack at Aqaba?
GIAMBASTIANI: What I would tell you is that we operate around the world. We're going to continue to operate around the world, day in and day out. Clearly, we have force protection concerns inside the Middle East and Southwest Asia.
But what I would say to you is that -- as a Navy officer, as a former commanding officer twice, as a force commander and a fleet commander -- we're going to continue to operate. And we'll take whatever force protection measures are required, both in port and when we're at sea. And if we need to, we'll get them under way.
QUESTION: On that point, the Jordanian authorities are now saying they believe that terror cell behind the rocket attack is tied to a group of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, based in Iraq.
Do you believe that there is a spread of terrorism emanating from Iraq? We've heard a lot about terrorists coming into Iraq. Do you believe there are terrorists spreading from Iraq to other neighboring countries, committing attacks?
RUMSFELD: The way you've cast the question suggests that that would be new. It wouldn't be. When Zarqawi -- well before the war in Iraq, well before the U.S. invaded, Zarqawi was in Baghdad.
And Zarqawi was operating operatives in Iraq, in Turkey, in France, in several other countries. And that was being observed. So his interests and his activities outside of Iraq are nothing new.
QUESTION: Do you believe Iraq has become a training ground, in essence, for terrorists to launch to other places?
RUMSFELD: No, I think people are being trained elsewhere and going into Iraq.
Yes.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, intelligence reports are saying that...
RUMSFELD: These are classified reports that you have?
QUESTION: No, no, it's not a classified report.
RUMSFELD: Oh, just checking.
QUESTION: No, because the Katusha rockets used by the attackers against the U.S. force ships in Aqaba were similar to the rockets used by the Hezbollah against Israel.
Do you have any information that Al Qaeda, after claiming this attack, and Hezbollah are cooperating on logistics or training operations against the U.S. targets?
RUMSFELD: The investigation in Jordan is still under way. And I'm inclined to let it continue and see what they learn.
With respect to any linkages with Hezbollah, I'm inclined to leave that to the intelligence community to decide what they want to talk about.
QUESTION: On base closure, Mr. Secretary, the commission meets this week starting tomorrow. When the Pentagon's recommendations initially came out, you had said that you hadn't made the changes to those recommendations, if I recall correctly.
RUMSFELD: I did not.
QUESTION: And the message that many of us drew from that was that you wanted the commission not to make major changes to that list.
Traditionally, they've made about 15 percent changes on the closures, and they have questioned a number of things, including cost savings and significant cuts in base structure in the Northeast.
Would you like to ask them now not to make any changes? Do you expect them to make significant changes?
RUMSFELD: Well, let me say two or three things about this process. It's a very open process. It's transparent. It's on television. People can see and hear what individuals have to say.
The thing to keep in mind are the following several points.
One, the Department of Defense has spent something like two or two and a half years working on this. The recommendations came up from the services. Then they were looked at across services. And then they were fashioned into a package, costed. The data was arranged and the data was certified. And the data was then presented to the commission with the recommendations. What we've seen since is not certified data. We are seeing marketing data from various states and cities and communities that have a deep concern about -- understandably -- about the circumstances of their states and their cities.
But one has to give different weight to certified data that was shaped over two and a half years and information that's being gathered for the sake of making a point.
RUMSFELD: Second, on costs: I do not know precisely what the commission has said nor do I know precisely what the GAO has said. I only know what I've read in the paper, where the papers are saying some things with respect to cost.
And it strikes me it's important to take a moment and explain this. You all know that there are people in Congress who are recommending that we increase the size of the armed forces.
In addition, General Schoomaker came to me many, many, many months ago and asked that I and the president agree with him that we could increase the army by 30,000 on a temporary basis while the resetting of the force and the modularization takes place.
So let's take the number of 30,000, or some number like that, where we need to increase the size of the force. There's two ways to do that. We need 35,000 more people available to do the things that the Army needs to do.
You can get them from several places. You could get them by bringing them in and taking a year or two or three to train them. Or you can get them by moving them out of civilian jobs and putting them into military jobs. Or you can find efficiencies.
For example, if you've got two bases that do roughly the same thing and you decide that you're paying double force protection and double logistics, and you can save 1,000 or 5,000 people by bringing them together and having single force protection or single logistics -- just for a simplified example -- then the question is -- let's say you've got 5,000 people that you've just saved. You don't need them at that other base. Someone says that that's a saving only if you cashier them out of the military. That's kind of a green eye shade auditor approach to it.
On the other hand, if you say you're going to add 5,000 because of the modularization and because of the stress on the force and the things you're trying to do, and you use those 5,000, then you don't have to add 5,000. You've had cost avoidance. They're exactly the same thing financially.
And any suggestion to the contrary that any of the cost savings that have been projected are not, in fact, really cost savings, it seems to me, would be a misunderstanding of the dynamics that are take place in the armed services.
RUMSFELD: The only other thing I'll say about the BRAC is that we have to be appreciative of the chairman and the commissioners and the work they've done. You're quite right: Previous BRACs have made some changes.
I looked at this two and a half year work product and all the data and the past history where people were concerned that politics had entered into it and made a decision that this was our chance in maybe a quarter of a century to reset our force, to look at military value, and to connect it with the important things that are coming back from Europe and around the world -- 70,000 military probably, maybe 100,000 dependents, contractors -- and have it all come together in a way that's in the interest of the taxpayers of America, that's in the interest of the United States armed forces.
These are all recommendations that they've produced. They didn't come out of midair. And there wasn't an ounce of politics in any aspect of it.
And I did exactly what you said. I looked at it and said that it would be risky for me to try to second-guess all of that and pull a thread out and have some non-intuitive effects that one couldn't anticipate because I hadn't spent the two and a half years doing it.
I feel that we made very solid recommendations. I suspect the commission, when all is said and done, will endorse the overwhelming majority of those recommendations.
Whether they make some changes is up to them. The next step then would be for us to make our recommendations to the president as to any changes that are made, or might be made, and advise him as to his next step, which is either to send it to Congress if he's comfortable with any changes they might make or not make or send it back to them to review any changes they thought they might like to make. And time will tell.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, the presence of Cindy Sheehan outside the president's ranch in Texas drew a significant amount of attention. Two-part question for you: Your thoughts on her protest and, also, if you had the chance to talk to her, what would you say?
RUMSFELD: Well, anyone who lives the lives we live in this department and meets families of those that have died and meets families of those who have been wounded has to feel a great deal of empathy for each one of them.
What one says is never perfect but one always tries to help those that are grieving understand the importance of what their sons and daughters have been doing, the fact that it has contributed to the liberation of some 15 million human beings in this earth, the fact that the alternative, in the case of Iraq, is to turn that country over to the Zarqawis of the world, mass murderers and beheaders and terrorists whose goal is to spread death and destruction against free people elsewhere on this globe.
And while it has to be heart-wrenching thing for each of the families involved, our task is to try to help them and the country understand the importance of the work that's being done.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, in your opening remarks, you said that Americans are a tough lot and will be able to see it through in Iraq. Yet, in recent public opinion polls, American support for the war is waning and opposition to the war is growing.
Can the U.S. war effort in Iraq be sustained without the overwhelming support of the American people?
RUMSFELD: I think it'll have the support of the American people, and it will be sustained, and we will be successful.
And the alternative would be to turn that country and 25 million people over to terrorists and the kinds of people who have used chemicals on their own people and chemicals on their neighbors. That's not a happy prospect. That would be to turn to darkness.
QUESTION: And what do you say to Senator Chuck Hagel, a prominent Republican, Vietnam War vet, who over the weekend compared what's going on in Iraq now to the Vietnam War?
RUMSFELD: The differences are so notable that it would take too long to list them.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, has the United States government satisfied itself that traces of bomb-grade uranium found in Iran a couple of years ago did in fact come from Pakistan and, thus, are not indicative of a faster-moving bomb program in Iran? And, if so, did that lower the threat level that you have to worry about here at the Department of Defense? RUMSFELD: I'm going to leave the judgments about that to the intelligence community and the people that are working with the IAEA that have been engaged in the process. It's not this department that does that.
Obviously any information about Iran's interests or progress with respect to nuclear weapons is something that's of interest to the world and certainly to the E.U. countries that have been in continuous negotiations with Iran, tempting to dissuade them from proceeding down that path.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, The Reverend Pat Robertson has suggested that the United States should assassinate Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president. What were your reactions to those remarks? And has that ever been considered?
RUMSFELD: Not to my knowledge. And I would think I would have knowledge. Certainly it's against the law. Our department doesn't do that type of thing. He's a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time.
QUESTION: In light the report last month on China's military modernization, how important is it for the Taiwan legislature to push ahead and authorize the purchase of U.S. arms offered in 2001?
RUMSFELD: You know, I've always believed that countries, sovereign nations, have to do what they decide to do. It's up to them to do it. We make our positions known, and our position is known with the Taiwan Relations Act. And we have an obligation under that act to work with Taiwan on fulfilling security and arms sale provisions of that act.
RUMSFELD: If they decide not to or if they decide to do so, that's up to them.
QUESTION: But are they free-riding on the U.S.? I mean, does their delay indicate a lack of seriousness?
RUMSFELD: I think if I wanted to communicate something to the government of Taiwan, I would find a better place to do it than here.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, the Army has recently decided to review the investigation of the death of PFC Patrick Tillman in Afghanistan. Does this indicate at all that the initial investigation was botched, as his parents claim?
RUMSFELD: I was not aware of that.
GIAMBASTIANI: I was not aware of it either, sir.
STAFF: All I've seen is a wire story from earlier today. I'm going to trying to gather some facts on it.
RUMSFELD: They're trying to gather some facts on it. I'm just not sufficiently knowledgeable to respond thoughtfully.
QUESTION: Thank you.
This morning, you met with the South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon. And recently, U.S. and South Korea have differed over whether North Korea should be able to retain a peaceful nuclear energy program. This is a major sticking point in the ongoing nuclear talks.
I'm wondering, did you discuss this with Minister Ban, and what's your personal opinion on this issue?
RUMSFELD: He is in town. We had a very good meeting. He is going to meet this evening, I believe, with Secretary Rice.
And, as you know, the Department of State has the lead on the six-party talks. And it seems to me it's best from the standpoint of the Pentagon for us not to get involved in the various aspects of the negotiations as they go along.
But we did, in fact, discuss that subject, among other subjects, and had a very good meeting. And I've been impressed at how our countries in the six-party talks -- the countries other than North Korea -- have managed to stay reasonably well-knitted together as that process has gone forward.
QUESTION: China and Russia are holding their first joint military exercises this week, including an amphibious assault on the Chinese mainland in the East China Sea, not all that far from Taiwan.
What do you see is the impact or implications of these exercises, especially in light of the recent department report on China's military ambitions?
And I wonder if the admiral has a comment on that, as well, from an operational standpoint.
RUMSFELD: Well, I guess what I would say is that nations have exercises all the time. We deal with any number of countries, dozens of different countries. And NATO countries deal with Russia on various things and we deal with India.
And, so, I guess I don't find it notable.
RUMSFELD: It is just a fact that countries get together and engage in various types of exercises.
The report that you're referring to, of course, is a report that is required by statute. It was factual. It was analytical. It was not judgmental. It just described what is taking place in the People's Republic of China.
QUESTION: So, Mr. Secretary, it doesn't concern you these two major powers with the big military relationship are now, for the first time, actually exercising together near Taiwan?
RUMSFELD: I guess I've answered the question. Yes, I mean, countries do that. We are obviously observing what takes place, but I didn't see anything in it that was threatening to Taiwan or anyone else.
QUESTION: Were we invited as observers? Certainly we'd be watching but...
RUMSFELD: Not that I know of.
GIAMBASTIANI: We are observing them. We obviously watch these.
QUESTION: How closely?
GIAMBASTIANI: We watch them. We watch all these exercises.
RUMSFELD: Not as an official observer.
GIAMBASTIANI: Right.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary...
RUMSFELD: I though I had -- didn't you have a...
QUESTION: I did but...
RUMSFELD: Why don't we let somebody else...
QUESTION: You sure?
RUMSFELD: Well, you got a nice tie on today and...
(LAUGHTER)
RUMSFELD: ... maybe we'll run a little longer and let you -- we'll come back.
QUESTION: Somewhat different subject: Is the department considering expanding the role of the Missile Defense Agency or setting up a new agency to handle cruise missile defense?
RUMSFELD: We don't have anything to announce on that. And I don't know what the status of it is.
Do you?
GIAMBASTIANI: No, sir.
RUMSFELD: I talk to the missile defense people frequently and General Cartwright out at STRATCOM about it, but that's not something that's on my radar screen at the moment.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, the U.S. casualties from IEDs over the last four months have been at their highest levels we've seen since the invasion.
I'm wondering what you attribute that to. Do you think we're going to see it continuing? And would you attribute to Iran, to this increasing sophistication of IEDs?
QUESTION: What's your...
RUMSFELD: You're talking about Iraq?
QUESTION: I'm sorry, yes.
RUMSFELD: The number of incidents, you know where that is, that level. And it's been going up, as it has in every other instance prior to an event, like the constitution or an election in Afghanistan and so forth. We tended to expect that.
The number of provinces that it's occurring in, in Iraq, are relatively few, three or four or five, not 18. Relatively modest numbers in the remainder.
As you point out, the lethality, however, is up. Interestingly, however, of the number of incidents, the overwhelming majority are not effective at all. There are no casualties. I'm going to say like 80 percent of them...
GIAMBASTIANI: About 75.
RUMSFELD: ... yes, 75 percent of them, there are no casualties. So I don't know quite how to characterize that, except that they're hitting maybe one out of four, where they're able to accomplish what they'd like.
On those, the lethality has been greater, which is the point of your question. I don't know quite what I would attribute it to, other than the fact that they obviously are becoming more sophisticated in developing, in large measure, explosive devices which have greater lethality.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, there seems to be an increase in the same thing in Afghanistan, has there not?
RUMSFELD: There have been some with elections coming up September 18. If you went back and adjusted it to the prior elections, I'm not sure I'd say it is an increase. If you're talking about a month or two ago, there has been somewhat of an increase.
QUESTION: Well, I was wondering: Do you see cooperation, technology-sharing between...
RUMSFELD: I'm not ready to make that judgment, but it wouldn't surprise me. But with the elections coming up September 18, this is now the 23rd and the registration process has taken place. There are thousands -- I think it's thousands -- 2,000 or something like that -- candidates in Afghanistan.
(CROSSTALK)
RUMSFELD: More than 1,000. And it's for provincial as well as parliamentary offices. And that's a big task for the U.N. and for NATO. And we, of course, in each instance have increased the number of forces that we have in country and Afghanistan and Iraq in anticipation of elections. And we very likely will be announcing a temporary increase in forces in Iraq in anticipation of the October 15th. So at some point we'll be notifying people and taking that forward.
QUESTION: How big an increase?
RUMSFELD: I don't know -- 1,000, 2,000, something in that neighborhood.
GIAMBASTIANI: A couple of battalions.
RUMSFELD: And, of course, NATO is going to be increasing in Afghanistan, as well, during that period. I was referring to Iraq in that case.
GIAMBASTIANI: And we have already increased in Afghanistan in July one battalion.
QUESTION: Are you saying, then, that there are, in effect, more targets for these roadside bombs?
RUMSFELD: No, I was just commenting that we're doing what we've done in the past in both countries, and that is to increase somewhat.
QUESTION: If the Iraqis push for a constitution over the objections of the Sunnis, do you believe that that will adversely affect the insurgency -- I mean, increase the insurgency if it's pushed through as is while these objections of the Sunni...
RUMSFELD: I don't do those hypotheticals. Why should I -- what if this, what if that, what if this, what if that? Why should I do that?
We're going to know. We're going to know precisely what's going to happen.
And we know that for confidence in the part of the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shia, they're going to have to see a piece of paper that they can look at and have reasonable confidence that it will protect them from the others. That is a big deal. That is tough stuff. That is hard work. That is a leap of faith.
And anyone knows that the constitution would be defeated if it stiffed any one of those three units, elements, ethnic groups.
RUMSFELD: Therefore, the constitution, to be successful, has to take into account the legitimate interest and fashion a balance in the federalism aspect of it and in the other key things that they're worried about so that they all and say, "Well, I really don't like it, it's not perfect, but it's good enough. And, by golly, if we have to amend it, lots of other countries have amended their constitution. And if there's something we made a mistake on, we'll just have to fix it later or let the parliament do it in January with the new parliament after we have elections under that new constitution."
This is not easy stuff.
Is this really your last press briefing in the Department of Defense during the current iteration in your career?
QUESTION: It seems so, yes.
RUMSFELD: Well, my golly, we wish you well. And, who knows, you could come back in 25 years just like I did.
(LAUGHTER)
(UNKNOWN): Or like I did.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Well, thank you.
RUMSFELD: You could just get up and give a testimonial...
(LAUGHTER)
... to how much you've enjoyed working here and how much you respect all the people that you've had the privilege to meet, but that isn't likely.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Well, I did want to ask more about Venezuela. And that is, what -- I guess, could you characterize what problems or what threat even may they present to the security of the Western hemisphere? And what's the best way to deal with it -- for the United States to deal with it?
RUMSFELD: Sure. Well, I don't know that they -- anyone who travels through Latin America and talks to countries, as we do, will find that a number of the countries are concerns about the activities of Venezuela in South America and in Central America. And their concern is that they want to be able to -- each country wishes to be able to sort out its political situation in a peaceful and democratic way.
And to the extent they have concerns, that there are influences from outside their country, they expressed that concern to others.
RUMSFELD: Now, what's the best way to deal with it? Countries in the hemisphere have adopted different approaches. Some have been quite standoffish with Venezuela. Still others have said, "Well, let them gauge and talk to them and see if we can't find a way to moderate and to create an environment that's hospitable to democratic processes."
And it is clear that the United States favors peaceful, democratic relationships between the nations in this hemisphere. It is also clear that we favor each country working out its own solutions, politically, free of external influence.
And I don't know how to characterize what's the best way to deal with it, but I suppose it's that. It's to express that hope.
Thank you, folks. Good to be with you.
PHILLIPS: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld there side by side with the new vice chair of the joint chiefs, Admiral Ed Giambastiani. First time that we saw him in a formal briefing talking about everything from Iraq to Iran. We're going to take a quick break. More LIVE FROM right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: Iran's nuclear ambitions. Did the Bush administration get it wrong? For two years, it's pointed to traces of highly enriched uranium found in Iran as proof that that country was planning to make a nuclear bomb. Now Dafna Linzer, diplomatic reporter for the "Washington Post" has uncovered evidence that seems to prove otherwise. She joins us live from Washington.
Dafna, good to see you
DAFNA LINZER, "WASHINGTON POST": Hi. Good to see you.
PHILLIPS: Let's talk about this secret meeting that you talk of in your article among these scientists.
LINZER: Yes, it's very interesting. The U.N. inspectors did something different this time on Iran than they had done on Iraq. They put together a group of scientists, which included U.S. government experts, to take a look at some of the evidence on Iran. There had been some concern for the inspectors because they had been questioned over their findings on Iraq. They wanted to come up with a way in which the findings would be accepted by everyone, that they wouldn't be challenged by individual governments and there could be a consensus agreement on certain findings on the Iran case.
And on the issue of contamination, of whether or not the Iranians were making bomb grade uranium, there seems to be consensus that they were not.
PHILLIPS: So does this mean that Iran is no longer a nuclear threat because of what's been uncovered here? Because Iran has always said, look, it's contamination. We've never been making bombs. And the Bush administration has said, no, this is evidence of bomb making.
LINZER: That's right. There's still a lot of suspicious activity in Iran and questions that remain unanswered. Remember Iran did build its nuclear program in secret over 18 years without question. They acknowledge that. There's outstanding things that they have not answered. They've not explained on certain aspects.
So the suspicions remain, I think, on how advanced Iran's program is. There seems to be, I think, less certainty now than there was before that they were very advanced or very close to making bomb grade material. The evidence for that is thin.
PHILLIPS: And let's talk about Abdul Qadir Khan. Remember this story, the top Pakistani official, also the nuclear scientist, he said he sold spare parts from Pakistan to Iran and other country. He came out on national television and confessed this. We haven't heard much about him or what has happened to him since then. How does that play into this?
LINZER: Yes, you raise an excellent point. It plays into it significantly. Pakistan have kept Khan completely under wraps. They've refused to let not only U.N. inspectors but U.S. intelligence question him. And Pakistan has come under pressure for its lack of cooperation.
But I think, you know, this effort recently in which it sent some of its matching parts to this group of scientists to inspect and to do some work on, I think for the Pakistanis, this was an example of their efforts now, after quite some time, to start cooperating a little bit.
It looks like it's helping. It's certainly going to help a little bit on the Iran case. But, yes, I mean, A.Q. Khan, who took Pakistan nuclear, also supplied Libya. He also supplied North Korea. And when we talked about the outstanding questions a minute ago, a lot of them have to do with what exactly his relationship with the Iranians was as far back as 1987.
PHILLIPS: And real quickly, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said another unmistakable indicator of Iran's intentions is the pattern of repeatedly lying to and providing false and incomplete reports to the IAEA. You had that quote actually in your article. I think a lot of people are concerned. Look, we don't want another Iraq. If the Bush administration says there's a nuke threat, we don't want to go to war against Iran. We've got to pay attention to the new evidence here.
LINZER: Well, I think that that's certainly the case. I think that there are people in the administration who are trying to draw attention to, you know, Iran's nuclear program, to potential threats. I think the administration, even the president, says often that one of the things they've accomplished on Iran is increasing international pressure and international attention on the issue.
That said, there have been statements about the intelligence case. That have certainly have been more definitive than the intelligence has ended up showing.
PHILLIPS: Dafna Linzer, reporter for the "Washington Post," great article. Thanks for sharing more information with us today. Quick break. More LIVE FROM right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
